API Research Notes

DIFFERENT FACES OF A TERRORIST

Janelynn Njuki

September 11, 2001 marked the long bloody day in the history of modern

terrorism. The attack on the US military nerve center changed the way the

world viewed terrorism and terrorist. It triggered major changes in ways of

understanding and combating terrorism. The attack also sparked identity

questions of its actors and the need to unearth the not new phenomena, which

had not only strained human security but also state security. Years later,

terrorism still remains a threat to both national and international security. The

concept terrorism remains contested and questions on who exactly is a

terrorist remain unrequited.

Historical Perspective

The term terrorist, referring to an individual or a group; and terrorism, referring to the activity or act committed by a terrorist, have in the recent decade gained popularity despite it not being a new phenomenon. The first incidence of terrorism was documented in the 1st century during the Zealots uprising against the Roman leadership in Judea. Using daggers, Zealots cut throats of both political and religious figures belonging to Jewish establishments and Roman officials in broad daylight, causing fear and anxiety among population in Jerusalem. Religious fundamentalists and in particular, Hindu girls, Sheer and Suni Muslims committed acts of terror against individuals they perceived to be non-believers and as such enemies.

Academics like Mahmood Mamdani connect

modern day terrorism to the historical fight

against colonialism, cold war politics and neo-colonialism in the third world countries. In reference to cold war politics, for instance, the then two super powers, USSR and US supported opposing insurgents and government allies in third world countries. In so doing, acts of terror were committed in states such as Angola and Nicaragua. Post cold war was also characterized by anti- colonial terrorism as well as internationalization of terrorist groups such Al-Quaeda. Emergence of sleeper cells can thus be traced to this period during which, indigenous terror groups gained support from groups sharing the same ideologies

globally.

Modern day terrorism has its trace in the French revolution of 1789 when revolutionary leaders, concerned about counter-revolution, ordered execution of

ISSUE NO. 11, JULY 2017

API Research Notes

between 17,000 – 40,000 people in public. British philosopher Edward Burke hence coined the term terrorism in 1975, when he was referring to the Reign of Terror in France, which was the period between 1793- 1794.

Although terrorists have since changed their modus operandi and objectives, some key elements like violence, instilling fear, mass execution, hijacking, kidnapping and attainment of political objective have remained constant. In some instances, actors too have changed while in some, the identity have remained the same.

Contested Definition

The contextual meaning of the concept of terrorism and on who exactly is a terrorist is contested. The contestation has thus become one of the 21st century fundamental questions that both States and Non-State actors are still grappling to define. The concept of terrorism cannot be

to a larger extent comprehensively be defined from one direction. Is a terrorist defined by their physic, gender, ideological beliefs, class strata, age, Religious affiliation, cultural dressing, technique in which they use to commit the act of terror or

is it through a persona perspective or an organization/grouping/region perspective?

The U.S. Department of Defense defined terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”.

Scholars have conceptualized terrorism as a social political phenomenon. It has been classified as violent conflict between the have and have not, employed by clandestine individuals, groups or state actors, for idiosyncratic, political, religious, or criminal reasons. Other scholars conceptualize terrorism from a historical perspective, where they perceive terrorism as a strategy of revolutionary struggle, especially after World War II. Yonah Alexander, among other scholars defined terrorism as “the use of violence against

random civilian targets in order to intimidate or to create generalized pervasive fear for the purpose of achieving political goals.” With such conceptualization, how then do

you profile a terrorist?

API Research Notes

Dissident Terrorism

Philosophical as it may sound in conceptualizing the term terrorist, its definition is of necessity. For example, how do you distinguish dissident terrorism, which is a form of terrorism from below, committed by non-state actors such as nihilists, revolutionary groups and national liberation movements, as it was witnessed in colonial period from individual terrorism? Are nationalists dissidents whose objective is to gain independence terrorists? Case in point, the South Africa African National Congress (ANC) was regarded as a terrorist group. Nelson Mandela, until 2008 was listed as a terrorist on the US terrorist watch list. Mau Mau freedom fighters in Kenya were also branded as terrorist by the British government during their pursuit for an independent and self-rule Kenya. Were they real terrorists or was it just political tool used by the colonial masters to achieve their political objective of repressing and deterring Mau Mau’s quest for freedom? What of nihilist dissidents whose sole objective is to eradicate or control existing

social order through violent means? Can they too be labeled as terrorists?

State Terrorism

Scholars like Gus Martin examined State Terrorism or “terrorism from above” to include atrocities that are committed by government, their agencies and individuals

against what is perceived as enemies of the state. This form of terrorism is directed towards a perceived enemy on international forum or against a national enemy. As such, state terrorism can act either as an instrument of domestic or foreign policy upon which national strategic interests are defended or promoted. States have also used acts of terror to suppress any objector within their territory or destabilize unfavorable foreign government and states. States such as Syria, Libya and Sudan have been using state terrorism as instruments of foreign policy. Libya was for instance in 1988 involved in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie. Sudan on the other hand has been accused of supporting terrorism groups in the Middle East and North Africa while providing safe haven to Al Quaeda, Hamas, Syria supported Hezbora and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In 1950s Honduras government established an underground death squad and chamber for torturing Nicaraguan counter

revolutionary by the name Contrast. The created death squad was responsible for disappearance of many unionists, political activists, students and civilians.

In the recent past, the Gulf region was said to be experiencing the worst diplomatic disputes in decades. The four nations of Saudi Arabia, United Arabs Emirates, Egypt

API Research Notes

and Bahrain accused Qatar of funding and maintaining contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group considered to be a terrorist group. The Qatari Royal family was also accused supporting terrorism across the Middle East. Thus, with this kind of allegation against Qatar, are we in a

position to refer Qatar as a terrorist?

Heads of States and Governments have also been labeled as terrorists. For instance, President Assad government was

accused committing acts of terror by instigating a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun town, killing approximately 86 Syrians on April 4, 2017. This notwithstanding, a similar chemical attack was launched on August 21 2013, resulting in the death of more than 1000 civilians in Ghouta. In this context, can we label the Head of State as a terrorist?

Push by President Trump administration to bar refugees and immigrants from Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan from entering the United States of America due to the fear of them committing acts of terror, has been met with opposition from other leaders across the globe. Measures used to brand or profile individuals from the said countries as terrorists have been questioned, therefore

spiraling the conversation on whom exactly is a terrorist.

Gender Complexities

The male gender has been, since the 1st century when the first act of terror was orchestrated, topped the agent food chain. Security agencies listed the male gender as the main perpetrator of terror on their most wanted terror watch list. According to David Rapoport, the gender dimension in terrorism

shifted during the ‘third wave’. Although the female gender had outstretched their wings during the ‘second, wave’, it was during the leftists or third wave that the role of female gender changed from being restricted to the role of messengers, spies, brides and scouts to becoming actively engaged as fighters and leaders.

Female rebels like Alice Lakwena, leader of the Holy Spirit Movement, a rebel group in Uganda, led the Acholi’s in Northern Uganda in taking up arms against the then newly elected President Museveni new administration. Lakwena commanded her rebel movement in fighting guerilla warfare as a regular army, taking and controlling territories in Southern Uganda. Can we label her as a terrorist? Other females like Samantha Louise Lewthwaite or popularly

API Research Notes

known as the ‘white widow’ is considered among the world's most wanted terrorism suspects. The ‘white widow’ led her Mujahedeen insurgents in taking hostage and bombing of Nairobi’s Westgate Mall on September 21, 2013, killing at least 67 civilians. Although some of the most significant acts of terror like the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center have all been orchestrated by the male gender, the role that the female gender has played cannot be ignored. Thus, with these gender complexities, who then is a terrorist? Is a

terrorist defined by their gender?

Economic Misconception

Actors involved in demystifying who a terrorist is, for decades believed that uneducated, uncivilized and impoverished individuals perpetrated acts of terrorism. The economic claim, which has since been normalized, seem to hold a lot of grievances

such as unemployment, which acts as a push factor in committing acts of terror. After the 9/11 attack of the Pentagon and world trade center, which marked the most long, bloody day in the history of modern terrorism, the then President George W.

Bush was quoted saying, “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror”. Laura Bush emphasized the point saying, “A lasting victory in the war against terror depends on educating the world’s children”. But what percentage of this economic assertion is true?

New discourses of the increasingly moneyed middle class perpetrating or funding acts of terror in the modern era have also emerged. Although the trend can be supported by the rational choice theory, which depart on the premise that violence or acts of terror are committed after clear economic evaluation of individual decision-making process, and as such, terror attack outcomes are based on individual critical evaluation of what will be attained after getting in bed in terrorism activities, it has debunked the orthodox theory of pasting uncivilized, illiterate and poor being more vulnerable to joining terror groups and committing acts of terror for economic

advancement.

Individuals like al-Qaeda’s chief strategist and Osama bin Laden’s deputy and now the al-Qaeda leader, who is a trained surgeon, Orlando Bosch, a pediatrician who was active in the Florida based anti-Castro movement and was later charged with the

API Research Notes

in-flight bombing of a Cubana Airlines flight in 1976 and the mastermind of the Garissa University terrorist attack who was a law graduate has discredited the economic advancement notion. Sticking to the question, who then is a terrorist?

Age Misconception

Regional and International organizations have since 1979 documented and raised concerns on recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts, internal strife and in situations of militarized violence. However, fallacies on juvenile involvement in violence, not as victims of violence but as perpetrators of violence on civilians have

not been well explored.

A regulatory double bind exists in the justice system too in executing criminal liability of child terrorist or on children who executes violent acts that can be regarded to as acts of terror. How does the justice system hold liable juveniles for committing acts of terror

while at the same time protecting the minors rights and privileges? For example, can the conscripted minors in Sierra Leone be held liable for crimes and violence they perpetrated during their stay with Charles Taylor, popularly known for recruiting and using children during the armed conflict in the country? Can we brand those children as terrorists, having inflicted fear and anxiety amongst populations, committed mass execution of civilians and above all, facilitated in aiding Charles Taylor achieve his political objective?

Modern day terrorism has seen minors constantly unleash acts of terror on civilians. This, ‘cabs of terror’ automatically changes the misconception of who is a terrorist. So we ask, is a terrorist defined by age?

It is therefore, of great importance that the term terrorist be clearly re-defined. This will aid in classifying violence as to either belonging to acts of terror or just insurgency.

©Africa Policy Institute, July 2017

Janelynn Njuki, API advisor on Governance and Security

API Research Notes

About API Research Notes

API Research Notes Series publishes scientifically valid research outputs that cannot be considered

as full research or methodology articles. Its aim is to provide a forum for sharing data, useful

information and perspectives on topical issues of concern to the policy and research communities.

Articles published under this series cut across disciplines, and include some short articles or opinion

pieces that have already been published by the experts of the Africa Policy Institute. Some are brief

publications, updates to previous work, abridged versions of research agendas or concept notes or

brief reports of policy forums.